Posted on 05/18/2005 10:30:09 AM PDT by Mike Bates
No, you are still separating them when they are one. You use the software under a license, and that license has terms. Those tems are what you separate out into an "agreement." It's like you don't operate under a contract, but have all the terms of the contract separate from it. You breach the contract, period, because you breach the terms of the contract.
If I terminate your license for export violations, and you immediately stop using the software, you never ever violated my copyright.
Only if you stop using the software. I assumed you meant continuing use of the software in Cuba. If you simply export it and not use it, you have no worries from Microsoft, only from the government for violating ITAR. But you are infringing on copyright the moment you use it.
BTW, licenses are rarely "terminated" unless they are part of a contract (as SCO terminated IBM's UNIX license for allegdly breaching their negotiated contract, according to SCO such revocation was their right under the contract). Because the author has copyright law behind him, there is rarely a need to actually "revoke" anything. You simply state that the user is in violation of the terms of the license, and therefore the user is violating your copyright.
If you use BitKeeper to write another CM system, you've violated the license for BK, but you have most assuredly not violated BK's copyright.
Yes you have. You are then using the software in a way not allowed you by the author. ANY use of ANY copyrighted work (outside of fair use) without license from the author is a copyright infringement. You can't say "Well, I have a license and it wasn't revoked." It doesn't matter. You lose by default. Copyright law is that powerful. The author can collect damages from the moment of infringement, not from the moment of any official revocation of a license. If the work is registered, and the user claims he didn't read the EULA and didn't know he couldn't do that, the author can still recover up to $30,000 in statutory damages for unwillful infringement. It does help if the author later officially revokes the license, because then that proves to the court that subsequent use was willful, entitling the author to up to $150,000 in statutory damages.
If my license to you says that you can only use my software on alternate Tuesdays, and I catch you using it on a Thursday, you've violated the license, but copyright law is absolutely silent on particular days
Copyright law doesn't care about the days. It only cares that he infringed on your copyright by using your software without a license because he only had license to operate it on alternate Tuesdays. Remember, the word "license" itself means "permission" or "grant of rights." Doing anything outside that license is working without permission or grant of rights. Without permission or grant of rights, you are infringing on copyright.
I didn't mean "you" specifically to mean you. Fair use is such a grey area that no one can make blanket statements about what's fair in such cases. It has to be decided in court based on specific circumstances. What I posted are just things that influence the court in deciding whether an infringement occurred.
Yeah, I pretty much agree here. I think if one of the "kids" caught downloading actually went to court and the whole "why were they downloading and what did they use the songs for" thing came out in the open, the RIAA would be laughed out of court.
But to most people, the $3,000 bucks looks much to tempting compared to the other choices.
At this stage in life, and having won in court against attorneys myself, I'd be more than happy to fight it in front of a jury and represent myself.
The key phrase is, "in front of a jury."
Simple hypothetical question for you. I take my laptop containing my North America-only copy of NT on a business trip to London. Upon returning home, I realize what I've unwittingly done. So I call my good friend Bill G. up - we're tight like that, Bill and me - and I explain what happened. "No problem," he says. "We'll let it go - just don't do it again." So, have I violated Microsoft's copyright? Yes or no?
Let's not say London because you can certainly take NT there, say a nasty country. Let's see, you violated the license while there, but the copyright holder orally waived his right to sue for copyright infringement, effectively giving you license after the fact. You're safe.
This license after the fact thing is done all the time by Microsoft. Your company is caught without enough licenses, so Microsoft says it's all good as long as you sign up for a nice long Software Assurance contract that includes licenses and upgrades.
No, what he waived was his right to revoke my license. Big difference.
There is a difference, but it doesn't mean anything for this scenario. He agreed to neither revoke your license (meaning all future use is copyright infringement) nor sue you for your past infringement. Again, he will never sue you for breach of contract unless you have an actual contract with Microsoft in addition to the license.
Where does copyright law say it's a civil or criminal violation to leave the country with software designated "North America-only"? Title and code, please.
You have something against Capatalism? I never understood the utter jealousy and contempt liberals have for someone who was innovative and smart enough to make tons of money.
How does it HURT YOU???
You are thoroughly misunderstanding basic law. Copyright law doesn't say anything about that. A violation of copyright is usually between you and the author. ITAR (22 C.F.R. 120-130) regulations specify what can and can't be shipped outside of the US and to where. USC 22 Section 2778 is the legal basis for ITAR.
Yes, exactly. Thank you. So when you said "the copyright holder orally waived his right to sue for copyright infringement," that was completely off-base, wasn't it? In truth, because copyright law does not speak to taking North America-only software out of North America, Bill can't possibly have been waiving his right to sue me for copyright infringment - there is no infringement inherent in such an act, and thus there is no cause of action for a copyright suit. Therefore, the only thing he could possibly have been waiving was his right to revoke my license. QED.
No, it wasn't.
In truth, because copyright law does not speak to taking North America-only software out of North America, Bill can't possibly have been waiving his right to sue me for copyright infringment - there is no infringement inherent in such an act,
Yes there is, because he put a reflection of the ITAR regulations in the license. There would be no copyright issue if the license didn't mention where you could use the software. But it does, so there is.
You can't be serious. What you're attempting to argue - and not very successfully, I might add - is that if Apple puts a clause in their EULA that I agree not to smoke while using OS X, and I light up anyway, I've infringed upon Apple's copyright. Of course, the major problem you have is that copyright law says nothing about smoking being a copyright infringement. Obviously, to do so would be a violation of the license agreement, but the license agreement is not copyright law, and violating the license agreement simply does not equate to violating copyright law, so you're pretty much out to lunch here. Sorry.
That's exactly true. A copyright holder can put anything he wants in the license unless it's otherwise illegal. If you want to use his software, you have to abide by his rules. And since it isn't a contract, it isn't bound by fairness, adhesion, coercion and other concepts limiting how much of a contract is enforceable.
Of course, the major problem you have is that copyright law says nothing about smoking being a copyright infringement. Obviously, to do so would be a violation of the license agreement, but the license agreement is not copyright law
There's your conceptual problem. I've said it before, but I'll try it just one more time for the legally challenged. Here's how copyright law works. Just for you, I'll distinguish between License (like a EULA) and license (permission to do something).
"But you can't copy books, everybody knows that" you say. Wrong. Books are published under the Creative Commons licenses, and they do allow redistribution -- but with other specific terms, such as no commercial use. Commercial use of certain Creative Commons works is copyright infringement because you violated the license. Nobody has to revoke a license, they just file suit for copyright infringement.
Same with software: violate the license, infringe on copyright, because that license is by definition the only thing standing between you and a copyright violation.
THAT is copyright law. It doesn't care about specific terms. It only cares if someone does something without license.
'fraid not. Simply violating a provision of the license agreement does not "ipso facto" cause the agreement to be in abeyance. That is at the discretion of the other party, and is not automatic. I notice that you are, thus far, wholly unable to cite any portion of copyright law to support your position,
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.